Talk:Speciesism/Archive 1

Very POV article - still

The article has zero information about opposing views. It is Wikipedia's policy that no particular view should be given "undue weight or asserted as being the truth" (WP:NPOV), yet most of the article assumes speciesism to be valid, e.g. "Some religions are less speciesist than others." There should at least be a section with a sampling of the various criticisms of speciesism, such as Helene Gamburg's and Josie Appleton's essays in Spiked magazine, or perhaps some of the points from the BBC article. 169.233.72.42 18:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Reading for the first time today and the first section has three individual viewpoints against speciesism and the only rebuttals are "others argue". Would suggest that the top section be reworked a little to add in the "others" or subtract the two that hadn't coined the term. Mullanaphy 4:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.165.94.180 (talk)

False Statements and Probable Forgery

The paragraph given below is fundamentally untrue.

"The teachings of Jainism, Hinduism, and Buddhism emphasizes ideals such as sarva jeeva sama bhava (सर्व जीव सम भाव), that is, "all sentient beings are equal", and are examples of religions that tilt towards being less speciesist, though the extent to which this is reflected in daily life in countries where those religions are influential depends on the local culture."

Even a cursory glance at Hindu or Buddhist dharma (ethical) texts will make it clear that both of these religions recognize a hierarchy of worth amongst living beings. It is more wrong (in Hinduism) to kill a Brahman than it is to kill a dog, for example. In Buddhism, a monk's life is worth more than is that of an ordinary person. If specific citations are required, I can provide these.

I should also note that I do not believe the Sanskrit quote given is legitimate. It appears to have been concocted by someone with a rudimentary familiarity with the language. It is technically Sanskrit, but it is in the way "Be having equalness, beings of sentiency all do," is technically English. It was almost certainly made up for this article.

Needs improvement

I think we need more through coverage of the topic here. In reading it I'm not feeling throughly informed. Topics such as a more indepth explanation of how this is used by animal rights proponents ect. General quality of the artical could use a boost.

---

LMFAO at speciesism. I love you people. Left wing kooks are much more entertaining than Right wing kooks.

chauvinism -> sexism

Duh.  :-) Thanks AxelBoldt

Speciesism isn't left wing. - FrancisTyers 16:02, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Francis, I'm pretty sure the anon(?) above was talking about the concept of speciesism, which was almost certainly concieved by what in America at least would be considered the "left wing" (i.e. liberals, such as the Democrats).  :) 4.235.69.95 15:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Anti-speciesism vs. radical anti-speciesism

Article said:

, but radical anti-speciesism is extremely rare and probably unworkable in practice.

What is radical anti-speciesism? If Peter Singer isn't a radical anti-speciesist, what is one? -- SJK

Ok, by analogy: We'll define racist as someone who advocates discriminatory treatment for different races, and we'll assume that the cultural milieu under discussion is actually somewhat racist (say South Africa under apartheid or a bad area of the US south in the first half of the 20th century).

An "anti-racist" would be someone who advocates more-equal treatment for persons of all races (in a racist culture, we'd expect this to be an unpopular idea).

A "radical anti-racist" might be someone who actually attempted to practice these views (very unpopular move).

So - the default in our culture is "speciesism"; that nonhuman animals <> humans. Singer I would call an anti-speciesist (says that humans and nonhumans should have more-equal rights under the law). I'd say a radical anti-speciesist would be someone who strongly practiced what he/she preached on this.

In the real world, we do see "anti-speciesists", but as I said we don't see many radical "anti-speciesists" as defined here.

I think the difference between regular anti-speciesism and radical ant-speciesism needs to be clarified as well. -- Doc Daneeka March 19th 2006

Continuing with the example of comparing racism to speciesism, a radical anti-speciesist would be like [John Brown (abolitionist)| John Brown]]. (Although racism <> slavery, they are close enough for this analogy.) Of course,given how much of a hero he is seen as, that comparison would more likely be used by one of its opponents. This definition can be extended to anyonewho takes extreme (posibbly violent)action. Although we still need to define "extreme" Vizzydix1 —Preceding undated comment added 18:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC).

(Or; if all animals were equal to humans, would you want your sister to marry one?)

If your sister marries, she will most definitely marry an animal. --AxelBoldt

Equality does not necessarily imply supplying housing to bees, shoes to horses and so on, but equal rights to basic needs, which then may differ depending on the species. -- Doc Daneeka March 19th 2006

I have a STRONG suspicion that no one is REALLY a strong anti-speciesist. Consider, few people would willingly kill an earthworm for no reason. But vast-vast majority of people would try to kill a tape worm is infected. This highlight how different species are treated differently.--Hq3473 (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Singer

Singer argues that animals should be treated equally to humans, in themselves. Of course, humans and animals have different needs -- it would be stupid to provide college education to animals, just as it is stupid to provide hay to humans. Humans may even in some circumstances be worth more than animals, due to their higher intelligence, etc. But Singer insists that, in themselves, animals are of equal moral importance as human beings. Singer would define himself as a 'radical anti-speciesist'.

And, as a matter of fact, Singer practices what he preaches to a great extent (he is a vegetarian.) He also might not mind his sister marrying one. (He has argued that there is nothing wrong with human-animal sexual relations.) -- SJK

Okay, then Peter Singer is a radical anti-speciesist, and, as I originally wrote, (the position of) "radical anti-speciesism is extremely rare and probably unworkable in practice." Do you disagree with this last statement? If not, I'm going to put it back into the Speciesism entry.

Well, I both disagree that 'radical anti-speciesism' is extremely rare -- its not just Singer, its many in the animal liberation movement, and some followers of Eastern religions (e.g. Jainism) -- and to say it is "probably unworkable in practice" is merely an opinion, at the very least it needs some evidence. -- SJK

Well, I consider myself a "weak" anti-speciesist, and I suppose I'd say devout Jains are "strong" anti-speciesists, and that "radical" is a position beyong that.

(Come to think of it, what I probably mean here is a functionalist (?) definition: An anti-speciesist position so strong as to be unworkable in practice is one I'd define as "radical".)

Well, I don't agree with the concept of "an anti-speciesist position so strong as to be unworkable in practice"? I suppose a radical anti-sexist is an anti-sexist position so strong as to be unworkable in practice? And a radical anti-racist is an anti-racist position so strong as to be unworkable in practice? You either are anti-speciesist, or you aren't. Just how you are either anti-racist or not, or anti-sexist or not. I can't see how there can be degrees of anti-speciesism. -- SJK

In many former societies (and some now) anti-sexism and anti-racism were unworkable in practice. People have been ostracized, imprisoned, and/or killed (see Ku Klux Klan) for violating these taboos. (For that matter, ask the Afghanis about sexism now).

Let me try to rephrase. "Living as a practicing anti-speciesist is probably unworkable in any existing society". What do you think about this?

I don't see how it is hard to live as a practising anti-speciesist... if you do not engage in acts of speciesism yourself, and do everything humanly and morally possible to discourage or prevent others from doing so, then you are a practicing anti-speciesist. Just because the rest of society may be speciesist, doesn't mean you must be. Just as, just because the rest of the society is sexist or racist, doesn't mean you must be. -- SJK

Well, it comes down to a distinction between what we feel in our hearts and what we do in the streets. I mean, really, Singer's announcement of his views on the subject have hardly gone without comment!

(And again, a person living in some regions of Afghanistan in the last decade really did have to live a sexist lifestyle regardless of their personal views [or be punished for their beliefs]. People in some parts of the USA in the past had to conform to racist lifestyles regardless of their personal views [or suffer the consequences].)

Tell me then -- what speciesist actions is Singer, say, forced to perform by his society? How does his society force him to live a speciesist lifestyle -- SJK

Off the top of my head - sex with persons of other races has historically been illegal in many jurisdictions. Human-animal sex is currently illegal in many places.

It is currently legal everywhere that I know of to eat nonhuman animals and to use parts of them as material for clothing, drinking cups, hat-racks, etc. It is nowhere legal (that I know of) to treat human beings in this way.

Almost everywhere in the world, society draws a sharp (and I mean sharp) distinction between humans and nonhumans in these areas, and Singer, you, me, and everyone else are expected to conform to this.

How does the legality of eating nonhuman animals, using them for clothing, or so on, make it impossible for someone to be anti-speciesist? Just because the law lets you be a racist, doesn't mean you have to be one. One can not eat or wear animal products -- there is no law saying you must eat meat, or wear leather shoes, or anything like that.

Again, how does the banning of human-animal sex make it impossible for you to be a practicing anti-speciesists? Its not you who is being speciesist here -- its the law. And even if one accepts that having sex with animals is not worse than having sex in humans, it doesn't follow that one wants to do it -- just like how it is possible to support gay rights and be straight.

And society may draw distinctions and expect us to conform to them, but does it force us in any way to personally act in a speciesist manner? Society may allow, or even encourage, us to be speciesists; but it is entirely possible to be an anti-speciesist in practice today. -- SJK

Hmm, let's try this: Believing that it's ok to eat animals but not ok to eat people is speciesist. Yes or no?

Yes, believing that is speciesist. But just because society as a whole believes it, doesn't mean any individual has to. It is entirely possible to not believe it. It is entirely possible to practice anti-speciesism, by not believing that and by publicly opposing that. -- SJK

Ok. One possible anti-speciesist view would be: "It is ok to eat animals, and equally ok to eat people." I believe we would find that examples of people practicing this view, or even seriously advocating it, are "extremely rare and probably unworkable in practice". Comments?

Yes, that would be an anti-speciesist (or maybe more accurately non-specieist) view. But calling it 'radical' implies that it is somehow more anti-specieist than the much more prevalent view that it is wrong to eat both humans and animals; when in reality it is no more anti-speciesist than the more prevalent view. And yes, such a 'radical' view would be "extremely rare and probably unworkable in practice." But what relevance has this got to the article? A 'radical' anti-racist view is that "it is okay to lynch black people, and equally okay to lynch non-black people" -- and that is indeed a radical view that would be "extremely rare and probably unworkable in practice" -- but does it deserve mention in an article on racism? I don't think so. Likewise, "it is okay to rape women, and it is equally okay to rape men" is a radical anti-sexist view which would be "extremely rare and probably unworkable in practice" -- but does this view need to be mentioned in an article on sexism? No, of course not. Then likewise the 'radical' view you mention above need not be mentioned in an article on speciesism. -- SJK

Jeez, I can't believe we've managed to drag this conversation out this long! :-) What I originally meant was: "Society treats humans and non-human animals differently. Some people say they think humans and non-human animals should not be treated differently. But in practice, really, really treating humans and non-human animals exactly the same is rarely encounted and probably unworkable."

In the event that you want to continue this discussion, do you really disagree with any of this?

---

I think it is a misrepresentation to say that Singer advocates equal treatment of non-human and human animals, nor does he claim that the two groups necessarily have the same rights. He says: the species a being belongs to should have no relevance for the rights attributed to it. The (mental) abilities of the being determine the rights. So if a severely mentally retarded person retains abilities comparable to those of a pig, then he or she should be treated similar to a pig. And Singer wants that to mean that pigs should be treated as well as mentally retarded, not that mentally retarded should be treated as badly as pigs. --AxelBoldt

---

AxelBoldt: Notice I said "equal treatment... in themselves". The "in themselves" bit is important. Singer claims that no human is more important than an animal just because he or she is a human being. Singer believes that, in themselves (i.e. considering only their species as animals or humans, and ignoring other possibly relevant features), animals and humans have equal rights and deserve equal treatment. -- SJK

What is one to make of a philosophy that looks ideal on paper but is impracticle in implementation?

To the person claiming that anti-specieism is impractical: This would constitute original research. Get it published in a philosophy journal, and then you may add it. Wikipedia:NOR --Beala (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Asian cultures

The claim that Asian cultures are uniformly less speciesist than European ones seems open to debate. In a brief trip to China, I had the misfortune to visit a Chinese zoo. If the PLA guys weren't so friggin scary, I would have seriously considered asking one for a quick loan of their rifle to put some of the more obviously distressed animals out of their misery. I'm told by friends that the Japanese have similar attitudes. Now, unless you're going to make the argument that the Chinese and Japanese have a similarly cavalier attitude towards cruelty to humans (and, for all the brutal things in their history, I don't think that's supportable), I can't see how you can claim that those countries are less speciesist.

I could simply delete that sentence, but their should be something more said about speciesism in different cultures. What do the rest of you think?--Robert Merkel

The despicable treatment of animals in the Kabul Zoo under the Taliban could hardly make us think that Asian cultures are less speciesist than other cultures are. -- Zoe

I was about to say, "yes, just delete it" but on second thoughts, it does seem true of much of central & southern Asia. If you read it carefully, it doesn't say anything objectionable, but (on the other hand) it gives a bad first impression. Rewording seems called for. How about: Generally speaking, cultures influnced by Jainism, Hinduism, and Buddhism have been ...? I.e., just leave out the word "Asian". Tannin 08:58 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

But that would simply not be true. As I understand it, most Japanese are nominally Buddhist (and Shintoist) and Buddhism was historically a major religion in China. You might say that Buddhism and Hinduism (dunno about Jainism) are less speciesist than Christianity and (I presume) Islam, but what difference is made in practice, certainly in the case of Buddhism, I'm not sure. --Robert Merkel

Well, I could argue that the Buddhist influence is obviously not very strong in those places and that the para therefor makes sense - but seeing as the original intent was to make the para seem to say what ir actually says, that would not be very helpful. Hmmm.... how about: The traditional teachings of Hinduisim and Buddhism are ... (etc.) but the extent to which this is reflected in daily life varies from one culture to another.

Tannin

Wait, where is your case? Are you arguing against culture or modernism? In actuality, Asian cultures have more anti-speciest rhetoric built into them. Also, effect that Mao's Cultural Revolution had on China would quickly explain why your Zoo case does count. The Cultural Revolution eliminated much of historical China, especially religiously, spiritually, and philosophically. Your case is against Modernist China that has appeared within the last decade, since the fall of the Soviet Union. This China does not symbolize the Asian Culture that is being referred to in this context. Also, animism is very prominent in asian cultures, which is only furthers the idea that they were more about specie-equality. Now, I'm not denying the Far West (the Americas) of not being Animistic, I'm merely saying that most anti-speciest philosophy (and rhetoric) stems from Asian philosphical and cultural influences, which is why the 60s in America are known for this - because they were influenced by Buddhism, Hinduism, and other eastern philosophies. I think far too many of you are merely accepting one argument and not doing the research.

Dante the Bard 07:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

---

This is a funny discussion. Plants are species, too, are they not? It is impossible to be alive and non-speciest. (man, is there no better spelling than this?) ANSWER: plants are species, but not animals. Speciesism is obviously not about plants, if it were it would seem pretty stupid to be anti-speciesist and vegan at the same time. You have to remember that humans are animals too, which means we condemn other animals, and are prejudgemental about their capability to suffer and think. So speciesism regards the species: animals

---

Those dirty kingdomists and phylumists!

---

This is a bizarre statement: Christanity is a "Western" [whatever that means] religion. The Copts might care to disagree.

---

Tats, I believe it's impossible to treat human and non humans equally. If we want to treat humans and non humans equalliy then we should stop killing anaimals for food. Would you eat another human being? I know i wouldn't. I believe we should treat animals with like how we would want to be treated.

Absolutely POV

The criticisms section is a straw man. It's given a 150 hundred words and then "refuted" with 500. C'mon. The first line of refutation reads: "A counter argument against the accusation of double standards is that ethics are not natural and to place ethical expectations on a species that lacks the language and intelligence to phrase ethics is meaningless." I don't see this as a counter-argument. That other species lack the language and intelligence to phrase ethics proves that we differ in kind from them. Marskell 12:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Isn't removing the whole criticism section also POV? Rephrasing and editing is one thing but removing the whole issue because it tries to represent arguments and counter arguments is the position "we don't discuss the matter at all", which is a position. I wrote the phrase mentioned above and I have to agree that it may not be perfectly phrased but the whole passage was very neutral and calm in wording. When I wrote that "other species cannot have ethics and thus cannot be blamed not to follow ethical goals" that is distinguishing sentient and sapient. A sentient creature may have the right to receive ethical treatment by a sapient creature that has developed the ethics to recognize that as a necessity. (I'm referring to this version) --Fasten 15:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I actually didn't remove (twas SlimVirgin) and it wasn't removed based on POV but on seeming to be OR. A modified version of it could be reinserted but with sources plz. The small criticism paragraph I've added at the bottom could be a starting point. And yes, watch for straw man arguments. Marskell 16:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Fasten, the section was a personal essay. It would have to be written in accordance with Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability, as well as Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:51, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I have had a go at reworking the article to address the POV concerns. It needed it. FT2 23:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Supporters and critics: Bad choice of quote

The Supporters_and_critics section contains an easily refutable argument from Ingrid Newkirk. A monkey mother would rescue her own offspring over a squirrel baby because of the mother and child relationship, which is essential for the continued existance of the species and can be found in much more primitive species. Most monkeys would most probably not rescue a child of their own species if it didn't belong to their own peer group, some may be more likely to attack the child. This is, however, irrelevant to the matter in question and therefore is a meaningless statement; presenting it in the context of an encyclopedia article could be seen as an appeal to ridicule. The quote is not factual and is not intended to be factual. That's why I suggest the article might be POV.

I was passed that quote by a friend who is in animal rights, when I asked for a supporting quotre. If its not a good one, can you suggest whats a good way to fix up the "critics and supporters" section? FT2 21:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

As regards merging the animal legal rights section into animal rights, my concern is, animal rights is often taken to mean, the animal rights movement, more than the laws governing the rights of animals. Is there an article "animal legal rights"? FT2 22:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

That Ingrid Newkirk regularly inserts foot into mouth doesn't mean that to quote her is an appeal to ridicule. The statement notes: "Ingrid Newkirk, the founder of PETA, writes..." If it read instead "Apparently, I'm not supposed to eat chicken because Ingrid Newkirk writes..." then I might see your point. The fact that, as it stands, this isn't presented as a fringe topic does much credit to the attempt at NPOV. I'm still wondering about sources on much of it though. Marskell 22:57, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion choosing a quote with severly incorrect implications like this conveys the, also illogical but conceivable, implication that the arguments of the supporters of speciesism are not well considered and exaggeratedly emotional, which is POV. --Fasten 14:32, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Marskell, I think he's right. I also agree with Fasten, that if this is a poor argument, it conveys the impression that the best argument is a poor one. That does not make it POV; however it does make it a poor choice of material. I have removed the NPOV tag, and added a comment that clarifies that others feel there is a stronger case which newkirk could have made. if you want to insert that stronger case, or quote, please find one and do so. FT2 02:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

My two cents on the comparison between "Speciesism" with racism and sexism

I should state upfront that I am not a supporter of industralized meat production, or any form of animal abuse. Although not a vegan, I rarely consume meat and avoid using animal tested products. But I am rather skeptical about the extreme positions that animal rights activists tend to take.

In my view, the juxtaposition between racism (or sexism) and "speciesism" is a logical fallacy, also related to what's called a "Guilt by Association". Or to put it more plainly, comparing racism to speciesism, or vice versa, is regarded as a kind of rhetorical technique, called “analogy”. The motivation behind making an analogy is when between A and B, you want to demonstrate that there is a property of Y on B, because A and B both have the property of X, and because A has the property of Y. So take an example, let A = Adam, and let B = Bill. Let X be the property of being male, which A and B both have. And let Y be the property that someone is chauvinistic. Now here’s a false analogy, what’s called a “juxtaposition”, mentioned above: Since Adam is a man and Bill is a man- so Bill is just like Adam- and since Adam is chauvinistic, Bill must be chauvinistic like Adam too. That is clearly a false analogy, again, a “juxtaposition”. We cannot conclude that Bill is chauvinistic given that he is a male like Adam and Adam is chauvinistic. So Singer puts racism (A) next to speciesism (B)- racism is discriminatory (X), and speciesism is discriminatory too (X), although totally different in terms of the essence of the thing that they actually discriminate- Peter Singer either does not care about that essential difference (in this case, a bit like PETA, who dared to compare black people with animals, or animal farms with the WW2 Holocaust), or he failed to explain the very essence of that difference (and I think it’s the latter). So now since racism is bad (has property Y), Singer concludes that speciesism (B) is therefore also bad (Y), because they both share X, where X is the property of being discriminatory. Whilest making an analogy can be convenient for demonstrating certain externally established point, it is not an argument on its own. In this case, the comparison between Speciesism and racism is a flawed argument on its own, you cannot conclude Speciesism is bad by putting it next to racism and sexism. How about if I put racism (A) next to meritocracy (C)? meritocracy (C) is also discriminatory (has property X). So A and C shares the property of X, and since A has the property of Y after having the property of X, is C also Y?? Is meritocracy a priori bad (has the property Y)? This is pure logic, an rhetorical analysis devoid of any intricate word meaning. It should be very clear why Singer is making a false analogy when he compares racism with speciesism, or a misleading juxtaposition. If he were to substantiate B being Y elsewhere (which he did to a small extent, but I find unconvincing), then again, the burden of proof is on him. A rhetorical trick such as an analogy is not an argument on its own at all. Speciesism may be discriminatory, but it is yet to be proven that it is actually "bad".

Singer's main basis for arguing that speciesism is bad, is roughly: That non-human animals are capable of suffering, and therefore deserve equal consideration of treatment. Not doing so would be committing speciesism, since it is assumed that humans have gotten equal considerations and treatment for one another (which is a far shot at least in reality). So there're some classic boarderline cases- one is when instances of human being become incapable of suffering due to neurological diseases, but that does not say anything about the overall species because such cases are mere instantiation of one species; So yet another classic: oysters do not suffer at all. Somehow all the vegans I met don't eat them. Upon confronting them, the response, "well, the standards have changed in this case, now the line is no longer “the ability to suffer”, but rather, "having life" "- so "having life" suddenly qualify "equal consideration". Then what about rice? or spirochaete bacterium? It looks to me the key basis of not committing one to "Speciesism"- based upon Peter Singer's primary rationale stated above- is just another arbitrary line drawn by someone for something he feels like promoting, personally, almost reminiscent to the line of “having consciousness” drawn by some guy, or the line of “being human as a species” drawn by some other guy, or whatever! Nothing but fanciful speculations under ethical subjectivism. What would be the universal justification beyond one's personal attitude? I mean, except when one is in the mood of being philosophical for the mere sake of being philosophical?

My own objection to the idea of "Equal Consideration of Treatment" extended to non-human animals is, how seriously are we to take this? Knowing that the consumption of fossil fuel by humans in fact has side effects that destroy natural habitat and poison and kill millions of animals, extinct hundreds of species- clearly a negative interference by humans that deprives of non-human animals "equal consideration of treatment", that it prevents them from pursuing their own happiness (whatever it might be). So do we stop using fossil fuel? What about the massive decline of our own food production as a result and the starvation of masses of human population that may be entailed? That's just one of the things one should think about upon hearing an outlandish proposal to give animals "equal consideration of treatment". It's not because we're actually "speciest" (not even saying "speciest" is good or bad), but how do we take this seriously, as to do something truely substantial about it?

--Charlesy 13:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Singer's argument isn't just an analogy. He bases it upon what he believes to be the central characteristic of discrimination: violation of Equal Consideration of Interests (ECI). His argument is more like this: Violating ECI is bad. Specieism violates ECI. Therefore, Specieism is bad.

As far as your objection to ECI, I don't think utilitarians would take that to be an objection at all. If extracting oil really does cause more harm than good, then we should stop using oil, or at least find some way to extract oil in a more environmentally friendly way. If humans starve, so be it. As long as utility is maximized, that's all that matters. To say that that's crazy because we ought to put humans first is to beg the question.

--Beala (talk) 15:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Equal Consideration of Treatment

Why does equal consideration apply to humans? If it applies to anyone, why not just members of X race or Y nation? If equal consideration extends to all humans, why does it stop there?

The fact that suffering/enjoyment is NOT intrinsic to humans is established. There are gray areas when you reach some animals, and oysters are unlikely to feel pain. That does NOT excuse the torture and murder of those who DO feel pain. If you are aware of the outside world, and can suffer and/or enjoy, (the two are all but impossible to seperate), THEN you have a right to equal consideration. Your moral rights are not derived from the law (that justifies Hitler), nor from your presumed intelligence (baby steak?) nor from being human. (Why human? Why not X race, Y nation, etc.)

Through conservation and use of alternative energy, it is possible to use fossil fuels without destroying too much natural habitat. Of course, even if destroying habitat for fossil fuels were absolutely unavoidable, it wouldn't justify killing someone simply to obtain fleeting pleasure from your taste buds. Eating flesh is in no way necessary, and if we were to stop, it would drastically increase available food supplies, since food would all be available to humans, not fed to other species being raised for flesh. For the most part, this "how far do we go?" attitude is a rationalization for people who don't want to be inconvienced by having to respect others' rights.

This article is written in "he-said, she-said" style, trying to present "supporters and critics," as is described in one major section. However, I looked at the article on racism, and it contained no mention of supporters of racism in a neutral or positive light. I don't expect as much, since racism is obviously morally wrong, so why the same here? Here, people "believe that [speciesism] it is irrational or morally wrong," whereas racism is never portrayed as being solely a matter of opinion or belief. Although somewhat less wide-spread than speciesism, racism is still quite prevelant in the world today. Perhaps Palestinian terrorists should have their anti-Semitism defended in the article on racism? No, but people who are willing to murder solely for their fleeting enjoyment should not have their rationalizations addressed in the article on speciesism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.25.61 (talk)

* "Eating flesh is in no way necessary, and if we were to stop, it would drastically increase available food supplies, since food would all be available to humans, not fed to other species being raised for flesh." 

• Categorically untrue. If you did your research you would know that the grain used to feed animals is far inferior in qulity to what humans consume. Most of it is inedible for hums, and certainly not stuff you want to eat. Plus, there is MORE THAN ENOUGH food for everybody on this planet - the problem is distribution. Wealthy people can get it because they have money. Starving people obviously can't, as they're poor 69.120.214.255 01:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• Perhaps you would like to quote references? -- Librarianofages 01:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you don't have to use the land that was used for animal feed in the same way! You plant something that is suitable for humans to eat instead. And the other 90% of this land, that would no longer be needed, can be left to return to the wild. Lurch23 (talk) 23:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Revert

I've reverted to an earlier version because someone has added a lot of original research. See Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That didn't all seem like OR to me. The sources weren't sufficiently explicit and verifiable but maybe that can be changed. Here's a link to the previous version. If somebody has the time and or information to provide sources may some of the material can be added to the article again. --Fasten 12:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Speciesism and Religion

The article mentions the relation between speciesism and religion. According to ^[1] Buddhists in Laos buy caged songbirds in very small cages and fishes in plastic bags to release them on the new year festivities. Offering money for somebody else to cage the birds or catch the fish and then to assume that the act of releasing the animals is a benevolent act (possibly good karma) is either not anti-speciesism or an astonishing feat at holding contradictory beliefs: An animal's status as a sentient being will hardly have changed between being caught and being released. --Fasten 15:13, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

^[1] (german) http://www3.ndr.de/ndrtv_pages_std/0,3147,OID2206498,00.html

It is an act of compassion, but not only that. One can be compassionate to equals. However, I'll have a look at the section to see if there's anything wrong in the text. Thanks! deeptrivia (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, now I read your comment more carefully. It's a funny ritual developed by the local people there, and I agree it doesn't show anti-speciesism in any way. This is also anti-Buddhist in many ways. The article already says that these religions are in principle anti-speciesist, but the extent to which people follow these principles in practice varies widely. deeptrivia (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Reply to "Equal Consideration of Treatment"

> Why does equal consideration apply to humans? If it applies to anyone, why not just members of X race or Y nation? If equal consideration extends to all humans, why does it stop there?

- Assuming you were writing to me, I suspect you missed my point earlier- the reason notations such X and Y were used, is to demonstrate that the analogy of Speciesism with Racism/Sexism is a logical fallacy. The analogy in itself has no merit, and depend on external arguments to stand.

> The fact that suffering/enjoyment is NOT intrinsic to humans is established. There are gray areas when you reach some animals, and oysters are unlikely to feel pain. That does NOT excuse the torture and murder of those who DO feel pain...

- Nor was that the point I was making. The point I was making was- where do you draw the line, and why that line and not some other line? Is there a meta-justification for the justification (suffering)? Appearantly there isn't.

> If you are aware of the outside world, and can suffer and/or enjoy, (the two are all but impossible to seperate), THEN you have a right to equal consideration. Your moral rights...

- Look at the above again- that's an assertion. Nobody in history had produced a single proof on the existence of the thing called `moral rights'- it is neither a priori, nor empirical- in the positivist terminology it's metaphysical talk, which is ultimately pointless...

> Through conservation and use of alternative energy, it is possible to use fossil fuels without destroying too much natural habitat. Of course, even if destroying habitat for fossil fuels were absolutely unavoidable, it wouldn't justify killing someone simply to obtain fleeting pleasure from your taste buds. Eating flesh is in no way necessary, and if we were to stop, it would drastically increase available food supplies, since food would all be available to humans, not fed to other species being raised for flesh. For the most part, this "how far do we go?" attitude is a rationalization for people who don't want to be inconvienced by having to respect others' rights.

- Your poor attempts at ad hominem aside, let me just remind you that I did not say anything in support of eating meat. Skepticism/being critical of something does not by default entail the support for the opposite. As far as facts are concerned, we don't have a political/economic system that advocates anything you just asserted, nor are they taking place in any significant scale (conservation, alternative energy, use fossil fuels without destroying too much... etc). So I don't see how we can be serious about outlandish demands like "Equal Treatment" to animals- we might stop eating them, but that would make very marginal difference considering the magnitude of killings going on elsewhere- deforstation, pollution, and so on. You may argue for veganism by saying "well, we do the best we can", that's fine, but that is not the same as "Equal Treatment"- far from it. I find it hard to take vegans seriously when they say things like "Equal Treatment" when all they're really doing is "the best they can", not eating animals, which is a minor nuisance in the whole of animal sufferings if you look at it in terms of numbers of species or numbers overall.

> This article is written in "he-said, she-said" style, trying to present "supporters and critics," as is described in one major section. However, I looked at the article on racism, and it contained no mention of supporters of racism in a neutral or positive light. I don't expect as much, since racism is obviously morally wrong, so why the same here?...

- Because it's not the same, re first paragraph. I would propose here an alternative standard in place of "capable of suffering" to discriminate racism from speciesism- a standard in which racism would be wrong, but speciesism is perfectly fine: How about "capable of resistence" as a standard, or as a reason to treat someone/something well? In reality, if you look at history, say, the French Revolution, or October 1917, to civil rights movement, or the feminist movements, or gay/lesbian movements etc, or take the 8hr. working day law (Haymarket riot), then you will quickly discover that "rights" are not granted to people, particularly minorities, by some benevolent supreme being- be it Thomas Jefferson, your government, or God. "Rights" are fought with blood, through years and years of struggle. Now if the animals can rebel too like the blacks and women etc, then they can have their "rights". In this view, racism is bad because it incites resistence and disturbs peace, but speciesism is fine because animals can never do the same. One justification for taking this standard may be that one wants to co-exist with fellow human beings peacefully but don't have a personal regard for animals since they could never play a part in disturbing peace of society. Now, I don't particularly support this view, but that's just an alternative, showing you how arguments work. There are many other standards/lines and arguments one may present that does equally well in discerning racism from speciesism, each with their own merit that tells you something about what the advocates are interested in personally. This simply echos my earlier saying: "where is the meta-justification for the justification?", and it undermines Singer's fundamental argument for "equal treatment", showing you that it is his personal interest alone that is the bottom line, and that interest may or may not be our interests.

So the analogy between racism and speciesism is a logical fallacy in itself, while its external justification rests on somebody's personal interest. If you see it his way, that you are interested in the same thing as he, then the analogy makes sense to you. But there's no objective, a priori reason why that has to be (neither does racism or sexism, so they are the same in this respect).

marry your pet reference

irrelevant or what?

Seus hawkins 21:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Symbols

I see only question marks below. Are others seeing proper symbols? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

sarva jeeva sama bhava (सर्व जीव सम भाव)

Yes! If your browser / window manager / GUI / operating system has the right fonts installed, you will see proper text. I'm looking at it in Firefox / KDE / Ubuntu and it shows up for me ... and no, I haven't done anything "special" to have the system support Indic text, especially since I can't read it. --FOo 01:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Length of Article, Counter-Arguments.

Given all the lively debate in the talk page, especially considering the counter-arguments, why is none of it manifested in the article proper or the references/external links? I think the lack of opposing viewpoints renders the article uninformative and incomplete. Detruncate 04:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone else can

The term speciesism isn´t really taken seriously by moral philosophers, with the exception of a few like Singer, for the reasons I have given above in "Reply to "Equal Consideration of Treatment"". -unsigned

Are you serious? Some 30% of my philosophy professors are at least vegetarian due to speciesist style arguments, and that's not exactly a low percentage. Perhaps if you said 'a few noted moral philosophers don't take speciesism seriously', you may have a point, but speciesism is a pretty big topic in most moral philosophy courses I've seen put together.

Maybe it's because of the region of where you live? I'm in the United States; what region are you getting this 'speciesism as not important' vibe from? — Eric Herboso 20:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe from a region that is not using most of the resources in the world and having the cheapest oil in the world? In some countries (like in Africa for example), people have less $$$ per day to live and don't have the luxury of inventing new interesting ethical problems and causes to fight for. In some countries, it is not as important if you eat poor animals, but more important is that you eat at all. That tends to change perspective a bit. And "specism is important" coming from a person out of the country who uses a lot of agricultural area to produce fuel at the cost of food prices rising in the poorer countries, I find it a bit hypocrytical. Just a bit. - Vorpal Saber (talk) 20:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

No citations

Article is not verfiable at all and should either be rewritten or deleted as current form is unacceptable.

The article is pathetically underdeveloped and unreferenced, but is certainly no candidate for deletion, nor does it need rewriting from scratch. Please sign your posts. 10:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Not Exactly Featured Article Material

I find the basic premise of speciesism ridiculous, but when I read the article I found nothing wrong with its tone. It could use elaboration, but the point of the article is to explain what is is, not to make a case for or against, and I don't think it does either at the moment. I think it should now have the 'needs improving' and the 'does not cite its sources' templates, not the neutrality one. User:Mjgw 13:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with what is written, the neutrality dispute is more a problem of the critics of the concept not being mentioned. I think an expand tag would probably be a better one, which I've replaced it with. Richard001 11:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Biased comparison

In this section an obviously speciecist part of the bible is mentioned and compared to a anti-speciecist citation from the scriptures of another religion. This leads to the disputable perception that religions based on the bible are speciecist. To achieve a neutral point of view, it may be more useful to compare the citation from the bible to another, anti-speciecist blible scripture, e.g. Noah's ark, and to give more examples from other religions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.84.43 (talk) 16:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Carnivores and Speciesism

Is it speciesist to believe that eating meat is wrong and beneath us, while animals do it? -- AvatarMN 11:01, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No. Speciesism only counts when there is no practical difference that would otherwise account for the difference. For example, it is not sexist to say that only females can give birth, because that is an aspect of being female that distinguishes males from females. Similarly, it is not speciesist to say that only humans recognize that eating meat is wrong; nonhuman animals seem so far incapable of being able to comprehend such an advanced ethical concept. If there were a nonhuman animal capable of understanding that eating meat is wrong, then you could fault that animal for continuing to eat meat. But so long as such animals do not have the capacity to understand the ethical wrong of eating meat, the situation is most akin to a toddler who accidentally pulls a trigger and kills a person. The act of shooting a man may be wrong, but you cannot fault the toddler for having done so, due to an insufficient capability to understand the ethical wrongness of the act. — Eric Herboso 20:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

But we would certainly prevent a toddler from handling a handgun in the first place, if at all possible. If it is wrong to eat meat, then it is wrong for all animals to eat meat, even if they don't know it. Therefore, we should prevent animals from eating meat when at all possible. To say "non-human animals don't know it is wrong to eat meat, therefore, they can eat meat" is equivalent to saying "toddlers don't know that shooting people is wrong, therefore, they can play with the handgun all they want."--RLent (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Labelling meat-eating as unethical and saying animals don't have ethics is "assigning different values to beings on the basis of their species membership", which is how speciesism is is defined in the opening lines of this article. -- AvatarMN (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"Labelling meat-eating as unethical" would be a POV statement made by some ethical vegetarians, but one group's POV does not change a definition. Whether or not animals have ethics, or make ethical considerations in their lives, is a separate discussion. Defending one's young, or an animal rescuing a member of a different species could be considered ethical acts, but determining the animal's thoughts and motivations is speculation.Bob98133 (talk) 15:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a separate discussion. So my question stands... with a busted answer by Eric Herboso, and a response from you that sounds as if you think I was saying he busted the definition the article uses, but I implied no such thing. -- AvatarMN (talk) 05:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

In that case, the answer is "NO".Bob98133 (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Very convincing. -- AvatarMN (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

A utilitarian might just bite the bullet here. If we had the resources to police the animal kingdom, and stop them from hurting each other then we should. Compare it to this: My cat is about to pounce on a mouse. Should I stop him? It seems that I should. So, we are morally obligated to keep animals from hurting each other.

The utilitarian might have a way out, though. Keeping animals from eating each other in the wild might destroy the ecosystem, causing more disutility than utility. Also, I'm not even sure all animals can be put a vegetarian diet. Can carnivores? Lastly, at this point in time, it might be the case that our money is best spent elsewhere. So, utility is maximized not policing animals. Of course, there might be some point in the future that we're prosperous enough that we could police animals, in which case we should (as long as ecosystems aren't destroyed, etc.)

--Beala (talk) 15:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

First, disclaimer: I have a hard time conversing with anyone who has ever let the word "speciesist" slip out of their mouth with any tone but one of disbelief. But I simply can't wrap my head around some of the things I've read on this talk page and particularly in this thread. Eating meat is a moral wrong which is simply too advanced for animals to fathom? All other things being equal, a human should interfere with an animal trying to eat another? I am just about speechless in the face of these assertions, so I'll throw in some copypasta to fill in the gaps here:

"Obligate carnivores or 'true' carnivores depend on the nutrients only found in animal flesh for their survival. While they may consume small amounts of plant material, they lack the physiology required for the efficient digestion of vegetable matter and, in fact, some carnivorous mammals eat vegetation specifically as an emetic. All felids including the domestic cat are obligate carnivores requiring a diet of primarily animal flesh and organs."

For all the ranting about how we take all these things for granted that we do to animals, things we would never do to humans... how in the world can you justify feeding, say, a cat a vegetarian diet, given the above information? Obviously you can't, so then it might behoove you to take a step back and evaluate. Look, I know that it's traditional to make fun of the right wing for being afraid of science, but I'm starting to think that the left is just as bad. With this kind of stuff, along with third wave feminism's continued assault on multiple areas of biological science (Go listen to the ladies who post on Jezebel tell you how women only can't play in the NFL because of the patriarchy! There's no practical reason why they shouldn't be playing and making pro-bowls every year!), it's clear that what makes you feel warm inside comes first, and what is established as fact in evolutionary science comes second. Sound familiar?

Fiction

There was a science-fiction section, which i have changed to a more general "fiction", so that other works showcasing speciesism can be added - someone who knows more can add to this too, tho it's not the page's highest priority atm! Hope scifi fans don't mind MickO'Bants (talk) 09:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

objectivism

I undid an edit by a user who removed the objectivism reference. While I sort of agree that putting the objectivist viewpoint here is pretty unimportant, when removing an entire section like that, it is generally best to bring it up on the talk page first. I should also mention that currently, 2/3rds of 208.100.228.221 (talk)'s edits consist of blanking objectivist viewpoints from other pages.

Should others here agree that the section should be removed, then so be it, but hopefully that will happen only by a registered user that has a history consisting of more than just deleting objectivist commentary. — Eric Herboso 21:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

sentience vs sapience in first paragraph

I just reverted a good faith edit by Master Deusoma that modifed the first paragraph from "...morally wrong to regard animals (which many people believe are sentient beings)..." to "...believe are sapient beings...". My reasoning for this revert is as follows:

While it is true that many believe non-human animals to be sapient, the first paragraph is an unsuitable location to say this. This part is supposed to be a quick overview of what speciesism is, and the key point is not that animals are sapient, but that they are sentient at all. While it is true that many believe animals to be sapient, this is NOT key to the charge of speciesism as a whole, because even if animals were not sapient, they might still be sentient, and the charge of speciesism would still hold.

Since sentience rather than sapience is the lesser (and arguably more sufficient) condition, I strongly feel that this opening sentence should refer to sentience instead. However, I would be happy to introduce the term 'sapience' elsewhere within the article. Should others disagree with this change, I would be willing to discuss this here. — Eric Herboso 15:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

bias

This article is horribly biased. Just thought I ought to say. Someone should try to make it more neutral. Not I, I'm much too drunk. 86.29.203.34 (talk) 06:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

When you sober down you might tell us what is, in your mind, horribly biased in the article. David Olivier (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Possibility of genocide

It seems that there is a good deal of misanthropy within the environmental movement. For instance, some radical enviromentalists promote what is called antispecism, and reject the entire notion that humans are superior to animals. While this might seem valuable to the environmental cause, when it is put in practice it can have devastating effects such as de-humanizing certain types of humans, encouraging discrimination and ultimately lead to terrible things such as genocide. A big part of the genocidal logic intervenes when humans are divided into sub-humans and super-humans for the sake of sacrificing a part of the human race that sooner or later becomes unwanted. ADM (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Terrible, isn't it?! David Olivier (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Specieism promotes genocide? I think you have this backwards. If anything, it's incredibly egalitarian. I'm not sure why you think equal consideration of interests leads to a division of humans into 'sub-human' and 'super-human.' --Beala (talk) 15:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

What counts as an 'animal'?

s As I understand it, speciesism is treating all animal species as pretty much equal. I didn't see anything in the article explain what an 'animal' is, however. Perhaps this is a grey area. Clearly, cats, dogs, elephants, dolphins and seals count as animals. What about earthworms, mosquitoes, tape worms, amoebas and sponges? By most biological definitions, an amoeba is an animal, but why would we ascribe the same set of rights as a human to an amoeba, but not to a carrot? Obviously, we have to eat something, but how 'dumb' does the species have to be before I'm aloud to eat it?67.70.64.171 (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, anti-speciesism (not speciesism!) is a negative concept, which doesn't depend on the concept of an animal nor on any other particular biological notion. Anti-speciesm is the assertion that the species of a being, as such, has no moral weight. It is not an assertion about the equality of species, but about the equality of individuals, irrespectively of their species.

Asserting that species as such doesn't have moral weight leaves open the issue of what does have moral weight. Someone who believes that all and only pink-colored beings deserve moral respect would, strictly speaking, be anti-speciesist (or at least non-speciesist). In practice, anti-speciesists almost always believe that what counts is sentience, or at least that sentience is a necessary condition for being morally important. Or perhaps, as Peter Singer puts it ("Response to David DeGrazia, Between the Species, 1992), that we should count equally all interests, but since a potato is not sentient, it has no interests at all for us to count. If amoebas are sentient, and have an interest, for instance, in not feeling pain, that interest should be counted.

In practice, though, it appears that only animals are sentient. Amoebas are not animals (check!), and are very probably not sentient. Only animals are sentient, but not all animals are sentient. We do not know if an ant is sentient. One can, along with S.F. Sapontzis, consider that the philosophical meaning of the word "animal" is synonymous with "sentient being". When we speak of liberating animals, it means liberating sentient beings, that is, all beings who have interests; and not all animals in the biological sense. It is then a matter of factual enquiry to determine which biological animals (and, improbably but possibly, other beings) are sentient.

David Olivier (talk) 13:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

:I replaced morally irrelevant with "given moral value" Trikolor (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Speciesism in fiction section

I really don't understand why what I added is supposed to be irrelevant. It discusses speciesism in fiction and the comparisons to real life using something that is culturally known, science fiction. I mean that was what the section was created for wasn't it? How speciesism with examples of fictional human level intelligent aliens compares to real life and perhaps why the public has a certain reaction to it that maybe is different than in real life. If there are differences why there are between real life speciesism between Apes and humans and the fictional one between Humans and say Klingons. How maybe the human level intelligence of the aliens perhaps makes it different than in real life if only because there is no analog in real life. Particularly the Planet of the Apes depiction of speciesism is relevant because it reverses it. In that case it is Human level intelligent Apes oppressing humans. I think that is a fascinating a turn of events in science fiction and is a direct correlation of how we treat primates in the real world. It was probably the whole point of the movies and the original book. The different reactions to interspecies sex between fictional Vulcans and humans as opposed to the potential closer to real life sex between a Chimpanzee and human in Planet of the Apes is a measure of the public feelings and different standards. As for sourcing the section I can likely source it and had every intention to (I did source the public's bestiality worries regarding Planet of the Apes) but I will point out that as it is NOW after the revert it is unsourced. Really, how what is in that short section sourced outside of a quote? If what I added to that section is irrelevant to the article, I have to ask why have a section devoted to speciesism in fiction in the first place? Why mention "Minbari distrusting humans, Centauri hating Narns" anyway? How is that relevant to the discussion and what I wrote isn't? How is trolls and dwarfs relevant? And again none of that is sourced as it stands now. I fully intend to source what I wrote but given what is there in that section it will be more than that is there now. Hunter2005 (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Are your edits attributable to a reliable source? If not, and you were the one who made the connection between speciesism and these films: that would count as a "novel synthesis" and would thus be inadmissible in the article. Gabbe (talk) 08:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the entire "In fiction" section should be deleted unless sources explicitly linking speciesism with these works of fiction are provided. At present it seems to be little more than complete speculation. Gabbe (talk) 08:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

As the section was exclusively original research, I removed it from the article. The following quote was substantiated with a source, but I'm unsure if (and where) it should be in the article.

Racism was not a problem on the Discworld, because — what with trolls and dwarfs and so on — speciesism was more interesting. Black and white lived in perfect harmony and ganged up on green.

— Terry Pratchett, Witches Abroad

Any thoughts? Gabbe (talk) 07:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

A comparison between interplanetary speciesism and human/non-human terrestrial animal speciesism may be relevant, but I can hardly see what can be said on the issue in a NPOV way. To blankly state that extraterrestrials are intelligent, while non-human animals are not, is very debatable, at the least. David Olivier (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Eukaryote bias

There's a strong eukaryote bias in the wiki articles on the biosciences. The articles are written as if a cell nucleus was the default assumption, even though the eukaryotes are only a tiny minority of all living things on Earth. So should that be covered in this article or do we need another article on Domain bias? Hcobb (talk) 20:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Removed paragraph

I removed this paragraph:

Although Camilla Kronqvist sympathizes with Singer’s aims, she does not accept his arguments. She writes "To say that our morality rests on attending to somebody’s pleasure and pain, also seems to be a pretty crude description of what it is to be a moral being." And concludes "I also find it highly unlikely that a polar bear would care for my interests of leading a long, healthy life if it decided to have me for lunch, and I wonder if I would have time to present it with Singer’s arguments when it started to carry out this intention." Singer responds that that fact that animals are not moral agents does not prevent them from being moral patients, just as humans who are not moral agents remain moral patients, so that their ability to be harmed remains the characteristic taken into consideration.

It gives legitimate criticisms of utilitarianism and animal rights in general, but it doesn't really have anything to do with speciesism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xodarap00 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

group is not plural

i know this is how the term goes around, but this is actually incorrect. species-ism is a plural with a suffix, which is just plain awkward. we don't say racesism or sexesism do we? no, it's race-ism, sex-ism, and therefor it should be specieism. now, should wikipedia use the common mistake or the uncommon correct term?· Lygophile has spoken 12:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Perceived awkwardness does not make a noun "incorrect". The fact is "Speciesism" is used in speech and is documented in the dictionaries [1], while "specieism" is not used, and is not documented [2]. Therefore "Speciesism" is not incorrect by any objective test, and therefor should remain.Hq3473 (talk) 17:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

"Species" is used as a singular in both English and the source language, Latin. The singular and the plural of the word coincide. The form "specie" does exist but has a totally different meaning. See Wiktionary:species. Phlyaristis (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

this is fucking retarded

Treating flies, mites, tardigrades with equal respect as you do humans is insane. Why there is even a name for this is baffling. Have we all gone ape-shit mad?

I have trouble parsing your comments. What do you mean by "fucking retarded"? Delayed ejaculation? I fail to see the connection. David Olivier (talk) 08:46, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The comment wasn't meant for everyone, but only those select logophiles who delight in the more arcane dialects of this language. Specifically people between the ages of 13 and 85, who have spoken English for more than a few months. (It's a vulgar phrase, and is not readily deconstructed into its constituent parts. Nor has "fucking" ever referred to ejaculation).67.255.14.227 (talk) 09:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Do you think its OK to show the pronunciation of the word (for non-native readers like me?)--Irrational number (talk) 12:08, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Vegetarianism as Speciesism

Does anybody know what arguments anti-speciesists make regarding the fact that they consume plant species? Shouldn't they scavenge or starve instead of asserting their so-called superiority over plant species?71.82.81.234 (talk) 19:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Populizers

Many wrote on Speciesism, see Google/Google book, search "Speciesism" and the translations of the term in other world languages. Saying "The idea (Speciesism) was popularized by the Australian philosopher Peter Singer" is unacademic. Conditions should be added to the statment.SSZvH7N5n8 (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Changes

Hello! I'm working on improving this article as part of a university course. I will be listing ideas and possible sources for citation before updating the article. Beaujayna (talk) 20:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaujayna (talk • contribs) 20:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

In Pop Culture

Alec Baldwin and Pamela Anderson are two notables out of long list of vegan celebrities who remain passionate and out-spoken about animal rights and speciesism. Both Baldwin and Anderson are spokespersons for PETA, with Baldwin narrating the documentary Meet Your Meat which examines the treatment of animals in factory farming and how, as a different species, animals should not have less rights than other species (species such as humans). Anderson has been in several ads and campaigns for PETA, stating she has been involved in animal rights since starring in the television show Baywatch.

Quotes in Favour of Anti-speciesism

Marc Bekoff, Professor of Biology at the University of Colorado, author, and editor of The Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Welfare, states, “Although other animals may be different from us, this does not make them LESS than us.”

"U.S. law is even more speciesist than the U.S. public. Most U.S. residents believe that it's wrong to kill animals for their pelts, but the pelt industry is legal. Most believe that it's wrong to hunt animals for sport, but sport hunting is legal. Two-thirds believe that nonhumans have as much "right to live free of suffering" as humans, but vivisection, food-industry enslavement and slaughter, and other practices that cause severe, prolonged suffering are legal." is a quote from Joan Dunayer's book, Speciesism. Dunayer is an editor, writer and animal rights advocate with three master's degrees from Princeton University.

“We should always be clear that animal exploitation is wrong because it involves speciesism. And speciesism is wrong because, like racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-semitism, classism, and all other forms of human discrimination, speciesism involves violence inflicted on members of the moral community where that infliction of violence cannot be morally justified." - Gary L. Francione

Beaujayna (talk) 23:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Quotes in Favour of Speciesism

I elevate human beings above all other species. Not only do I consider the human animal to be in fundamental respects superior to all other animals, I also regard human beings as the very most important kind of animal - certainly the most important to ourselves." - Tibor R. Machan

Beaujayna (talk) 23:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Activist Opinions

Having travelled extensively throughout the United States and Isreal delivering more than 2,300 lectures to over 60,000 people, Gary Yourofsky is an animal rights activist and the founder of the ethical vegan organization ADAPTT. Founded in 1996, "Animals Deserve Absolute Protection Today and Tomorrow (ADAPTT) believes that all animals have an inherent right to be free and live completely unfettered by human dominance. Sadly, most humans continue to embrace animal slavery, animal torture, and animal murder. Billions of animals are killed every year in a premeditated, systematic massacre. Remember, without universal equality, one type of equality will always create another type of inequality."

Aside from being a John Howard Harris Professor of Philosophy at Bucknell University, Dr. Gary Steiner is also the author of several books and an animal rights activist who is a strong believer in that animals have the same rights to life and freedom as we, as humans, do. In his 2012 interview with Kathryn Kopchik he states, "I don't see any morally relevant distinctions between different types of sentient beings, beings that can experience pleasure and pain, can have conscious awareness, beings for whom life matters. It's only on the basis of what some people call speciesism or anthropocentrism that we make such distinctions and privilege human beings. These speciesistic prejudices are comparable to the sorts of arbitrary hierarchies proclaimed by racists and sexists." Beaujayna (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Beaujayna, thanks for posting suggestions here. Bear in mind that this article isn't about animal rights or veganism. It's about speciesism -- the history, the philosophy, arguments for and against. Also, we can't write about it as though we are advocating one or another position. The writing ought to be disinterested, as far as possible. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:36, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Citation style

I propose we go back to the revision from October 15, 2012‎ with a consistent style formatted with templates that include DOIs, ISBNs, page numbers and improved biblographic data.  —Chris Capoccia ^T⁄_C 21:47, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The article already has a consistent reference style, so per CITEVAR I'd appreciate it if that would not be changed. In particular, Chris, as you (I assume) won't be working on the article, it makes no sense to impose a citation style on the editors who will be improving or expanding it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review

Beaujayna, I enjoyed the sections that you added under Pop Culture and Expert Opinions. There were no grammatical or spelling errors and the content was very interesting. There were many sources that were used which made the article credibility strong. There were also several links to other articles as well as references.

To improve the article I would suggest expanding more on the Pop Culture section, partly because I found it so interesting and wished there was more! There were also a few instances where your opinion may have come through but I think it was inevitable for such a controversial topic and for the argument that you were adding to.

Overall, your additions to the article were interesting and useful. Thanks :) Barrier Reefs (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Barrier, I hesitate to comment here, because I don't want to interfere with an assessment or be discouraging. On the other hand, there are serious neutrality (and relevance) issues with the edits. To what extent is neutrality one of the criteria you ask for? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:36, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi SlimVirgin, neutrality is a component that we were asked to comment on. For the purpose of this assignment, we just need to mention whether or not the information provided complied with Wikipedia's neutrality policy. Barrier Reefs (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I'm afraid it doesn't (at all), and I would have reverted had it not been part of this assignment. I'm in an awkward position here because I don't want to affect a student's assessment, but on the other hand it's a problem watching non-neutral material being added. Would it make sense for Beaujayna to work on this on a user subpage (e.g. User:Beaujayna/Speciesism)? She could write a draft there without it going live immmediately, then we could add whatever was relevant and policy-compliant to this article when she's finished. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

The peer-review assignment is over and has been completed so this shouldn't affect the student's grade. This overall assignment was more so to become familiar with wikipedia, research a topic and produce information for the public. I am sure Beaujayna will make a statement at some point also. Barrier Reefs (talk) 15:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks. As the peer review is over, I've removed the material. I don't know whether the assignment continues beyond this point, but perhaps Beaujayna could work on a user subpage to start with. If she wants more information about why the edits were problematic, I'd be happy to explain in more detail. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Hey Beaujayna, I am your second peer reviewer. I think that you have added valuable information to the page. I did not notice any grammatical errors. As far as the supposed neutrality issues are concerned, you could also include quotes or opinions from people who are in favor of speciesism (perhaps someone from a religious group/organization). Additionally I have undone the previous edit that removed your contribution from the article main page. P.S. Please do not let anyone's negative comments or edits discourage you, this is meant to be a learning experience so as long as you are learning from this assignment that is what matters. Great job!!!! Jemacleod (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I have undone the edit you made to remove Beaujayna's contribution. While the peer review part of this assignment may be complete the overall assignment is not. We are meant to take into consideration the peer reviewer's comments and make further edits. It is understandable that you wouldn't know this as you are not a member of our university class. This assignment runs through our entire semester which does not end until December 15. It would be greatly appreciated if you could refrain from removing anymore of this student's hard work until that date as it WILL impact their grade. Please note that constructive comments are still welcomed if the purpose is to aid in the student's learning. Thank-you. Jemacleod (talk) 20:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Jemacleod, the problem is that the material is very biased, a clear violation of the NPOV policy. In addition the new material is not actually about speciesism. Animal rights and veganism are practical applications of opposition to speciesism, but this article is about the concept itself. And listing people who are, in at least one case, vegans for health reasons has nothing to do with opposition to speciesism at all. For both these reasons, but particularly in the interests of NPOV, you really shouldn't have reverted. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I've removed the material again. As this is meant to be a learning experience about WP, one of our rules (WP:BRD) is that when editors object to the insertion of new material, it stays out until consensus forms on the talk page. I'm happy to go through the issues in detail if you like, but it's inappropriate to act as if this page is not part of the encyclopaedia because of this one course. I really think it would be better to use subpages, rather than going live immediately. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:55, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Note that student work for classes is still expected to follow Wikipedia's policies on article content, and it can and will be edited by other Wikipedians. However, even if they are removed from the article, student contributions will still be viewable in the article history.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 22:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

At this point, I do not honestly know what to say. I worked very hard on the research for this assignment. I was looking forward to reading the reviews from my peers, and was more than accepting of putting their suggestions in place - although I hardly had a moment to do so without having my work removed, and discouraging comments stated, more than once. I feel that was not only disrepectful to me, but to my peer reviewers as well. I came into this assignment with much excitement and enthusiasm as I felt this would be a community of help and support, and am leaving with the feeling that this communitity is not as supportive as I had hoped, but instead is more representative of an environment where I was bullied and discouraged. I feel many comments were not carried out with respect to me, or to my peer reviewers, and I will not be continuing further with this project because of that. I will leave my updated work on the talk page for grading purposes, but will be ceasing this project immediately. To my peer reviewers, thank you for your support, suggestions, and encouragement. Beaujayna (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

A suggestion

(edit conflict) Beaujayna, I don't know whether you have access to JSTOR through your university library, but here is a list from JSTOR about articles discussing speciesism, and here is a list of books on Google Books. For example, there is quite a bit on speciesism in the Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare from p. 527 onwards, some of which is visible on Google Books. You can see it on Amazon too. If you don't have access to JSTOR you can request individual articles from our resource exchange at WP:RX. This article, for example, looks quite interesting. Hope this helps. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)